It doesn’t show support for racism necessarily, but it does show some level of tolerance for racism, which also warrants criticism.
Agreed that it shows some level of tolerance. And you’re being consistent here, in that you’ve taken an absolutist position on this issue. But others have taken a softer stance, and my point applies from that perspective.
Liberals and lefties are human, they are just better at it.
I look forward to everyone who criticized Obama for the increase in the debt during his term to fairly apply the same standard to Trump and not be shy about expressing themselves.
And I look forward to finding Jimmy Hoffa’s body buried in my back yard.
The Republicans have completely abandoned fiscal conservatism, and their huge deficits are going to be a gigantic problem. They also seem to be abandoning free trade, which will cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Unless it kicks off a trade war, which could easily trigger a deep recession. They should be ashamed of themselves. Trump is a blowhard who doesn’t know much about trade policy, but the Republicans in Congress should know better. Hell, the last time a Republican was President he tried steel tariffs, and he had to go back on it after disastrous results. So not only are Republicans violating their own stated philosophy, but they seem incapable of learning from their own recent history.
How am I doing? Do I need to add some expletives for completeness?
How much power does Congress have regarding tariffs as compared to the president? My impression is that Trump can act unilaterally here.
Sure he can. And honestly, I was thinking more about the Republican base than Congress. A lot of Republicans in Congress expressed their disapproval, and Gary Cohn resigned over it. So there is at least some pushback.
But the Republican base seems to be mostly in favor of the tariffs. If you push some of them on it, they’ll claim that they still support free trade, and that Trump’s tariffs are part of his mastermind plan and no one is smart enough to understand the game he’s playing, but they have faith in him. It’s delusional.
Who is “the Republican base” in this context? Do you mean the average Republican voter? The average Republican voter has no clue about economics and has never had a clue about economics and doesn’t now and has never had any position at all on free trade. (Very similar to the average Democratic voter in this regard.)
Simply repealing the law that gives him that authority would stop Trump in his tracks.
Relevant article.
The Constitution gives the power of regulating foreign trade to Congress, though they gave some of that away via the Trade Expansion Act. A simple law either repealing that authority or overturning the tariffs would be sufficient, should Congressional Republicans manage to buy enough steel to form a spine.
“So let me be clear: I reject, condemn and oppose Minister Farrakhan’s views and remarks regarding the Jewish people and the Jewish religion,” Davis said in his statement Thursday.
Farrakhan is a racists. But Democrats can’t public say certain things ( call him A David Duke type, but in reverse ), as their base won’t like it.
Democrats don’t like Democrats calling racists racist? Wut? I thought that was a hallmark of the Democratic Party - calling everyone racists. I’m so far behind on the anti-liberal talking points, I might have to watch Fox & Friends.
I’d personally call Farrakhan a bigot, myself, but it’s not an issue for “Democrats”. It may be an issue for a particular subset of Democrats. Similarly, there may be a particular subset of Republicans who cannot go out of their way to scorn David Duke (not really the reverse of Farrakhan, but no matter) because people who like David Duke (or David Duke types) are in those Republicans’ constituencies.
America contains a lot of hateful people, as all countries do, so it’s not a major insight that people dependent on votes don’t succeed if they antagonize the hateful people. It’d be nice if there were viable third parties in the U.S. that could attract the votes of the stupid, allowing them to be ignored while moderates try to appeal to the saner, smarter electorate.
So if Democrats can’t condemn Farrakhan’s racism, why did Davis just do that?
Any chance this new information will create a new thought in your head?
Of course it won’t, because now you’re going to say that Davis didn’t really mean it. Still, there’s a difference between saying it but secretly not meaning it, and not saying it. Which is what you just said couldn’t happen.
(I don’t know if it is too late to add this. And forgive me if I am taking the debate in a slightly different direction:). But comedian-cum-political-commentator Bill Maher doesn’t seem to buy into much of the liberal hypocrisy. He is a Democrat, a liberal [for the most part] and even a vegan. But he never hesitates to criticize Islam and Muslims like Farrakhan, when appropriate. But he is kind of a nut himself. And he is not welcome on most college campuses. I am a lifelong Democrat and a liberal. And I would never hesitate to criticize Farrakhan, when valid. But I am not your average liberal either. And I am distinctly different from Mr. Maher in many ways too. Now carry on with the discussion as you were 
;).)
Clarence Page weighs in:
*"I was darkly amused by the sorrow-sounding plea pinned to the top of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan’s Twitter page earlier this week: “What have I done to make Jewish people hate me?”
What, indeed? Where does one begin?
Here, for example, are a few quick quotes from his speech to the Nation’s recent annual Saviours’ Day program in Chicago’s Wintrust Arena: The “powerful Jews,” he told the audience of thousands, “are my enemy.”
The Jews are also “the mother and father of apartheid,” he said, and “responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men”
“Farrakhan has pulled the cover off the eyes of the Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” he said, getting thoroughly revved up. “You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”
That’s ironic. If my black American experience has taught me anything, it is how much minority groups resent being told how they’re the “good” ones who should separate themselves from the “bad” ones…
The Daily Caller named seven U.S. House Democrats who the conservative site says have met with Farrakhan while in Congress: Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, Reps. Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee of California, Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York and Rep. Al Green of Texas.
Davis responded with two statements because his first one sounded too lame. But neither statement mentioned Farrakhan by name. Why such reluctance to condemn the same vile philosophy of hate that led to the slaughter of millions in Europe during the last century?
The best explanation is the old political slogan: All politics is local.
In the districts from which many of these black lawmakers come, the Nation of Islam often has a better reputation than Congress."*
While this is correct, what Page does not address is the legacy of anti-Semitism that enables “admiration” for Farrakhan, or the need to not just denounce his bigoted ravings promptly, but to stop associating with him permanently.
Other black leader embarrassed into renouncing Farrakhan (or at least his bigoted statements, back in 1991): Clarence Thomas.
Cite? (For the anti-Semitism, not for the “don’t ask me for a cite because ‘it’s not the real issue’” part.)
@ Fotheringay-Phipps - What positive things has Farrakhan done?
I don’t fully understand OP. If we dislike someone’s speech or actions, we should say so? OK, but there’s only so many hours in a day; don’t we have a duty to spend some of those hours denouncing Hillary again?
Let’s start with you, Fotheringay-Phipps. Is there any GOP politician or Trump Administration official whose speech or actions you disapprove of?
I think a better question is: are there any whose speech and actions he doesn’t disapprove of? Then we can look at those people’s speech and actions and assume that F-P must endorse them in some way.
From Wikipedia
The details are insignificant. Point is that these people are not necessarily anti-Semitic themselves but admire Farrakhan anyway on other grounds. From the first article linked in the OP: